1963-D Lincoln Weak Strike?

I found something somewhat similar on the top of this link:

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/DieAdjustmentStrikeOrWeakStrikeQ.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hey paddyman98- I know you're monitoring this thread. How about giving me your opinion.

 

If you want to be sure say @paddyman98 or something like that.

 

I don't see anything to tell me it is not a weak strike. What does it weight?

 

I keep getting a question and hearing in other threads: What does it weight? I don't have a scale. Maybe it's time to invest in one. Can you suggest/recommend a name, company or where I can get one?

 

There are lots of good scales out there in this digital era starting at <$10. I have a digiweigh and like it, but I use it mostly for postage.

 

DigiWeigh seems popular; I use one too. $15-20 on Ebay should get you one. Look for one which resolves 0.01g.

This is a crazy coin. The weak part on the reverse has the shape of the obverse; this "ghosting" is known for Lincolns (among other issues) with really old dies but I've never seem it actually affect the strike. If that's what's happening here.

 

Oh, stamps? Wow, that scale must be very sensitive! I guess it will work on coins, correct?

 

Great! Thanks guys, will do!

 

Oh, right! I see what you mean. Something like Lincoln's profile on the reverse but upside down.

 

The best comments I've seen are the Ken Potter report that TJ1952 referred to, which talks about "Die Adjustment Strike" and "Weak Strike". All these discussions about scales seem to be red herrings. Two things that interest me on the Obv is the L of Liberty climbing into the rim and the shrinking 3 of the date.

 

Thanks for the feedback on that anderspun! Yes, good eye! Now that you mention it, the "L" is running up the rim. Here's a few better pictures of the L & date.

 

This is plainly a very_old die pair, which is the cause of the blending of the L and 3 (although the 3 looks maybe like grease?). You can also see it in IGWT. The periphery of the die is subsiding after so many strikes. That extreme age is also the cause of the "ghosting" (PIDT):

http://www.error-ref.com/progressive-indirect-design-transfer/

 

Oh, great! It actually has a name. "Progressive Indirect Design Transfer" Thanks for that! I've been looking high and low for pictures, samples and definitions. So it's a legitimate error? Would you think a coin like this would be worth getting graded?

 

Keep in mind, the fact that the phenomenon has a name doesn't necessarily make it a collectible error. This is simply a manifestation of extreme die wear, and it's pretty common on US coinage of the era, especially the smaller denominations.

And I should emphasize that this is just a theory on my part; it's a pretty extreme example when the reverse die has had the obverse design pounded so deeply into it that strike is affected this much. It would absolutely be a keeper in my collection.

 

Great! Thanks for that. You answered my question by saying it's a keeper. I'm still trying to train my eyes on spotting unusual details and studying the various websited. I'll put that one in a 2x2 and add it to my "coinmanage" inventory database with the photo. I'm sure words like phenomenon, manifestation or anomaly make the diagnosis more difficult for these things. That's probably why we do it. I guess we're all looking for that golden nugget. BTW, I ordered the DigiWeigh with resolves of 0.01g.... $12.50 Thanks! Have a great New Year!

 

While I can't completely dismiss the notion of a weak strike, the strong design rim and peripheral details argue otherwise. I suspect it is a double-sided grease strike. The vague sunken shape of Lincoln on the reverse face would then be a "greasy ghost". If grease is of the right viscosity, it tends to flow toward the regions of lowest effective striking pressure. One of those areas is opposite Lincoln's bust. There are several other caused of centralized, bifacial design weakness.

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/04/centralized-bifacial-design-weakness-can-have.html#

 

Mike-

So you "wrote" the above article? Okay, well I guess I'm in the right place and found the "go-to" guy!! Thanks for taking the time with your detailed response. The first thing I did was bookmark your article. I guess there are guys out there with boxes of worthless errors. If "I" found it, it's guaranteed worthless! : ) I'll either learn and train my eyes to spot significant anomalies or troll thru eBay. Thanks again Mike! tj

 

Whoa TJ!952! It is difficult for me to find that the looking at problems and taking pains to describe them and suggesting their cause can be criticized in a derogatory way. I am interested in both your remarks and mikediamonds. Perhaps I'm gullible because of my ignorance.

 

anderspud- No, you're not gullible or ignorant! We are both learning. Hang in there!